_zr37

>Anyway, what sort of graduate work would you like to do and why?

I actually don't have a project in mind at the moment. I have in the past wanted to do a lot more with pushing forward open source diagnostics tools, (and with proving the ESD problems in the way most people handle physical servers) - but I don't know that is what I want to do now; it's been a while since I've been serious about the physical layer, and it's really really unstylish right now; it would be better done once the outsourcing pendulum swings back to insourcing.

I am interested in graduate level work in part because my impression is that my work style would be a better fit; my impression is that if you do something recognized as really pretty great every now and then, they forgive you failures in the meanwhile. Like industry. (I also think I'd be more comfortable going to school with graduate-school age people than with undergrad-aged people. I'm pushing 40 at this point.)

>And I’m surprised your academic performance in high school is still a hinderance. Do you also have not great test scores?

Only okay. I'm held back by pretty terrible math test scores. almost average GRE quantitative reasoning (95th percentile verbal, which is good, but not good enough to make up for an average quantitative) I did pretty okay on the MAT, too, but I don't remember the score, and anyhow, if I want to do something with language or the arts, I really badly need an undergrad. I can mostly read okay and can talk about themes of the classics as well as an arts major, (though, uh, I probably cant speak of the criticism of those works the way they can) - but everything else in the arts I'm pretty terrible at.

(I do have plans to take the LSAT this coming year, with little study. I actively studied for the FE exam last year, but found I have another year of math before I can even try. The LSAT looks doable; I mean, I would be surprised if I do well on it, but I'd give myself better than even odds of doing better than average on it.)

I think bringing up my knowledge of basic maths up through, you know, at least GRE math levels is a moderately high priority, but I haven't quite figured out how.

>If you could get into someplace reasonably prestigious, would you go back to school full-time? Or is being able to go to school while still working important for you?

If I seriously thought that I had a 90+ percent chance of graduating... and I do think that the admissions committees are pretty good at judging that sort of thing, yeah, I would be willing to spend four years on it.

This, though, I think is the crux of it. They won't admit me 'cause I don't have a 90+% chance of graduating. Yes, it seems horribly unfair that they hold my bad behavior of 20 years ago against me, but the fact of the matter is that I still don't have that level of discipline.

I suppose that's another reason I want to go; I see this lack of discipline as a big weakness, and... well, where do I go to learn it? I mean, the good colleges could be said to not teach that sort of thing 'cause they filter out people who don't have it on the front end, so I guess I'm in the right place? but maybe not availing myself to the right bits of it? I mean, there's a very large chance that this will simply be something like handwriting, something that I will be terrible at for the rest of my life, and that I simply work around by not doing the things that require discipline, but... like even with handwriting, I spent a few years at calligraphy as an adult before I gave up on it.

But you asked about motive, and that's different from how I responded. I do need to get better at constrained writing, and to learn even really basic level management type writing, and while this is certainly a goal, a degree is also something I want; I... would like to do some graduate-level work, and that seems difficult without an undergrad.

Also, a degree is an important plan B... I mean, as long as I'm employed where I am, and as long as the industry doesn't change, a degree in and of itself won't help me all that much, though basic management writing might. but if industry changes, there are a lot of cases where having a degree means you are legally middle class. Right now, the pay cut I'd take working anywhere else in the world would mean I should probably just travel on vacation, but if that ever changes? a degree is almost essential to do my job for a non-US company.

It involves a lot of essays... I'm learning a lot about constrained writing, something I'm pretty terrible at as-is. I mean, most of the actual information systems stuff is old hat, but there's a lot to be said for improving my writing to a particular format, and maybe it's best to do that on a subject you already know about? (Interestingly, feedback from my boss has been that I need to improve my constrained writing, that my design documents and things of that nature need to be better, more numerous, and more on topic and to the prescribed format)

It's really interesting 'cause the feedback at the online classes feels... a lot harsher than any I have ever gotten at work; I wonder how much of that is just what is expected in school vs. work? or if it's a class thing, like the school isn't prestigious, whereas most jobs i've had, well, it's usually obvious that I have a lot of other choices... or maybe that I'm really bad at this, and at work, well, there's enough I'm really good at that people treat me somewhat diffidently even in the areas where I'm really bad? I don't know, but it's an interesting experience in a lot of ways.

I mean, it's not bad really, just... really different from how I'm used to people giving me feedback.

But... yeah, I mean, to me it feels like you are paying for essay feedback. Like, they also provide PDFs, videos and reading materials, but I can get all those things on my own; it's the essay feedback, I think, that is the individualized thing.

well, the equation on the "competency based" degrees for me is essentially that they are super way less prestigious than traditional degrees, but they are the only way, as far as I can tell, to get an education without a "you are on time all the time or you fail" condition, as I have a very hard time being on time (and am largely not budget constrained, so the "pay for time" part of most competency based degrees is not as big a deal for me as it would be if I was very slowly earning a degree while working a less remunerative job.) -

'failure' in academia seems, to me, to be way harsher than failure in industry; Nobody brings up even pretty big failures of mine that occured even a few years back in industry, but my high school academic record, more than two decades back, still haunts my admissions efforts, so as far as I can tell, community college is the most prestigious route open to me, and I need to execute almost perfectly to graduate to the next level. I probably won't execute perfectly, especially as my work is a higher priority than school for me, (and my work record isn't perfect either) so I think this is the most realistic route to some sort of undergrad degree, even though I generally work a lot better in person than remote.

There are a lot of 'competency based' programs, and while I think something like that is the best chance I have of getting a degree without permanently marring my record in ways that makes doing academic things harder in the future, I have no idea if I picked the best competency based option. I do personally think that on the low end, you are way better off with a government school than with a private school; that was a big part of my decision. But, for instance, a friend was telling me about western governors university, and... that might have been better? they have an actual CS degree, which would definitely get me further.

So, I think about this a lot. I know a lot of really good sysadmins with no education; like of the people I consider really good sysadmins, close to half might not have degrees, and this is one of the reasons I equate my job to the trades. (I mean, along with the fact that our job is to create and maintain infrastructure so that other people can work) I know a fair number of software engineers with no formal education, though the proportion is a lot less than half. I know very few good electrical engineers who lack formal education. I don't know any good chemical engineers who don't have a formal education.

My own experience (I've tried at school several times. I'm currently enrolled in the computer information systems "competency based" degree at nau.edu, but I've tried a bunch of others) is that school is actually way more difficult than industry. You can't just be brilliant twice a month, as is my experience of industry; you have to show up and perform at 90% every day which seems impossibly brutal to me. I mean, this is probably a quirk of my own personality; I'm actually really good at coming in and dealing with disasters every now and again, but my consistency is... really pretty bad.

I mean, I personally think that a love of and respect for learning is fundamentally more important than education; but I also think that education isn't nothing. There are a lot of people who do a lot better with some formal education, and there are a whole lot of jobs, that as far as I can tell, are almost impossible to do well without a good formal education. I personally don't think I'd let a self-taught doctor hack on me if I had any other choice at all.

My personal opinion is that if there are any young people with the capacity to be good at those things that require an education who are prevented from doing those things because of money, our society has made a huge mistake, one that will cost us much money in the long term, just 'cause having those people perform at peak value is hugely valuable to society. Further, I think that the unwillingness, as a society, to pay for the education of young people evinces a lack of valuation of learning that might be an even bigger problem.

I think That was actually an example of the benefits one can gain by being around people who are smarter and better educated than you are. That book would not have been intelligible without my smarter and better educated co author.

I mean, I do think I am rather a lot smarter than average, but everything is relative, and I believe I have accomplished so much more because I seek out situations where I am surrounded by people I think are better than I am on those scales.

>Some of my kids seem like they enjoy academics, but others do not. I'll be pushing the latter toward trade school. Average IBEW (electrical union) pay is about $20/hr for an apprentice and $33 for a journeyman. $40,000 to $66,000 with ZERO DEBT right out the gate is nothing to ignore (and that pay can easily double -- especially in your younger years -- if you're willing to travel and put in those extra hours). It sure beats minimum wage at a crappy service job.

so, uh, I guess I'm the modern equivalent of those trades. I mean, I don't have a union, but I fix computers and make a whole lot of money doing it, without any education. It is a lot like a trade, 'cause essentially I'm infrastructure for industry. I mean, instead of maintaining electricity at a factory, I'm maintaining servers in a build farm, but it's still infrastructure.

On the individual level you have a point. I mean, as a sysadmin, I do make like 30% less than a SWE, but I still make a whole lot of money, and I started when I was 17.

On a societal level, though? when you don't have a degree, the amount you make is dramatically dependent on how productive the people around you are.

Because I live in silicon valley and manage infrastructure for (mostly highly educated) engineers who are incredibly productive, I make a lot of money. A huge amount for someone who isn't educated or born rich.

If I was in a rural area, I'd be fighting for a job at geeksquad. I mean, I'd handily win that fight, but if I'm maintaining infrastructure for people who aren't very productive, I'm going to make... not very much money.

My point here is that if the US continues this trend of not educating it's children and excluding foreign educated people? Jobs like mine, for uneducated maintainers of infrastructure follow the jobs for the more productive people. If those people start working from china? They're probably gonna go find locals to do my job.

What I'm saying is that it is very much in my interest to do what needs to be done (mostly, I think, pay taxes) to see to it that kids go to college, even if I don't have any children of my own.

> Not really, you have to pay competitively of course. But you can safely assume that everybody else does that too.

In silicon valley, the difference between what a FAANG company pays and what almost everyone else pays is... pretty big. Like maybe not double? but certainly half again as much. I mean, you could say they are competing for different people, I suppose, but when a recruiter tells me that they "pay competitively" - that means drastically different things for different companies, even if I am limiting myself to companies within 10 miles of santa clara.

> I noticed a pattern in Berlin where I'm based where the less attractive jobs indeed come with higher salaries. When the work is shit and they bleed engineers faster than they can hire them there's nothing else they can do than up their rates.

Huh. That's really interesting, 'cause my experience (In the US, mostly in silicon valley) is the opposite. There were times in my life where I actively sought out harder and even more dangerous work for more money; but even casting aside any concern over who I worked for, even if I was willing to go work in a war zone, for my skills? the pay was better sitting on an expensive chair in a safe office in mountain view.

Even within silicon valley, the smaller companies and the "scrappy" startups or small companies seemed to me to be a whole lot higher stress... which for parts of my life? sure, I'll take extra stress for extra money, but no, those companies pay a lot less. Which, again, is fine in certain parts of my life; I'm not educated, so I needed to get a lot of experience before I was given a shot at a job in one of the FAANG companies. And it was... really a very different sort of experience; I was 20 last time I had a job where I felt that junior compared to my colleagues, (and I had a hell of a job when I was 20).

I've seen something similar around layoffs; I've been through several layoffs but have yet to get a pink slip myself. and I've always found myself dissapointed that I wasn't laid off; those in the first round get nice severance, a retraining bonus, and a chance to get another job before too many other people are laid off. Those of us who "dodge the axe" end up having to do twice the work with almost no hope of a raise and with co-workers who are afraid of getting laid off in the next round.

that's the thing; I mean, yeah, we'd all take small pay cuts for a lot of things; but dropping out of a FAANG company to one of the companies that is having a hard time hiring is a massive pay cut.

Like, for me; I'd be so happy to take a 20% (hourly) pay cut and work half-time for 40% of my current total pay and go to school the rest of the time. But as far as I can tell, the hourly paycut would be more like 50+% just on the hourly, so I'd be looking at like a quarter the total comp, and the prestige cut (and thus hit to future earnings) would be huge, as I'd have to go work for a startup/small company.

I guess this will make more sense if marginal tax rates go back up.

I think #1 is mostly a pay issue. If two companies pay the same and one expects more hours, they don't pay the same.

(note, I'd also take a small hourly cut to work fewer hours a week, but as far as I can tell, the paycut I would need to take to do that is so large that I'm better off working a few years on and then taking six months or a year off and eating the tax and career disadvantages of that)

For most people in my area, #2 and #3 are also mostly pay issues. Like #1, it's not entirely pay, but the most common reason I've heard for people wanting to work places other than here (I'm in silicon valley, as you'd expect from someone trying to maximize salary) is that it's less expensive to live almost anywhere else in the world.

Isn't it just... mostly money? I mean, if you want to hire someone good, who presumably has a good job, you have to pay better than what they are getting now.

I think this is probably especially true in Europe; I mean, as far as I know, people get like a 2x-4x raise moving to silicon valley from europe. If you pay more than your local competitors, you will largely have your pick of the candidates.

I mean, yes, things other than money matter a lot, too. But as an employee? I think that's really, really hard to judge from the interview. The money is pretty easy to judge, and as far as I can tell, total comp is a good 'honest signal' that I'm going to be treated in other ways. How much money they offer is a better indicator that I'll be treated well, in my experience, than anything anyone can say at an interview.

I think as workers, we're not doing ourselves any favors by pretending that an employer can get the best people without paying the best rates.

so, just a datapoint, but I personally am much more consistently happy with my situation at large companies. Smaller companies tend to be dominated by how good your boss is (or isn't) - and even when you get a good boss, the small companies just don't have the resources, usually, to treat you as well.

There's also the other side of impact. Sure, it's easier to have a larger impact the smaller the company is. But... the other side of that is that there is a lot of pressure. At least on the ops side of things, a lot of my happiness has to do with how often the pager goes off. I mean, I don't mind being on pager; I can stay sober. But... if the pager goes off too often? we've got a problem, because my performance degrades as my sleep does. You can wake me up once a week. Maybe twice. More than that? and yeah, I'm not going to be so useful.

Larger companies have a lot more bureaucracy, sure, but that's good in some ways. For me? the biggest way that the bureaucracy is good is that it makes my relationship with my immediate supervisor (and those up the chain) feel a lot less feudal. It feels like it's a lot less dependent on my personal relationship with this person. (I mean, sure, your supervisor and your personal relationship with them is still important... just not as important)

But... a lot of people like smaller companies, too. It's a good idea to try both. But if you do get the chance to try working at a FANG company, I recommend you take it; If you don't like it and you leave after a few years, it will make it a lot easier to interview at smaller places.

so, from experience? Interviews can be the best way to learn algorithms for the interview.

First trick? there are fads in interviews. When I go through a round of interviews? there is always a lot of overlap between one company and another in the same location at the same time.

Second trick? Most places are cool with interviewing you once a year. In my experience? the second interview at the same company a year later is more different than a second interview at a different company a week later, but still, there's a lot of overlap, and most companies are actually pretty okay with you trying again every year, if you are close (and if you aren't close, you usually won't make it past the phone screen)

When I was a contractor, I lumped all my interviews into around the same time of the year, and I interviewed with all the top tier companies, a few of the second tier companies, and occasionally one of the not so second tier companies. (The latter mostly because those are usually the easiest interviews and they usually got back to you fastest, so it was a good ego boost, and a good way to negotiate my yearly raise as a contractor) I didn't have a spreadsheet or anything, but often the recruiters at my targets would hit me up when that year was up. Or I'd start wondering how long it had been since my last raise.

But, point being, when you interview? always remember the questions you got wrong. I put any memorization/trivia into flashcards the night after, and I practice the flashcards year round. Keep the old ones; you won't get those questions as often, but you still get 'em. And they are usually interesting bits of trivia that can come in handy in other cases where you want to look smart.

Go through any algorithms you didn't get with a friend to make sure it is what you think it is, and then with a book or online resource. Note, it's totally okay to ask the interviewer what algorithm it was supposed to be if you get it wrong; I mean, you still got it wrong, but if anything, it shows enthusiasm and willingness to learn.

Also, interview in clusters. At least in silicon valley, the fads change pretty quickly, so the more interviews you can do in a row, the better.

Eh, as a datapoint, I also have no degree. I worked at google for a few years as a contractor (with 15+ years industry experience before that) - A few months back, I interviewed and was hired on as a L4 (L3, as I understand it, is where you come in after college, L5 is senior.)

My personal impression is that it was pretty clear to all involved what they'd need to pay me, and they slotted me in at a tech level that made that ask reasonable.

(but then, I think that ask really was reasonable for my skill level and the current market, if anything in this market can be seen as reasonable, so I guess in the end, that means the same thing as slotting in my level based on my skill level. But google and the contracting house both had a lot of information about what I was willing to accept, and about what other companies were willing to offer me. I have a very open negotiating style.)

My other impression is that I totally would have had that senior title at a smaller company, but I wouldn't have gotten paid any more, so again, the money seems to be the honest signal.

>I can't think of anyone I know that could do well in the Google interview process but could not get good grades.

To get good grades, you must be able to do rote work on time. I did really poorly in high school, because if you don't do one thing, and you do brilliantly on the next thing? That averages to a failure. Doesn't matter how brilliant that next thing was. For me? This means I barely cleared 2.0 in high school, and didn't seriously pursue college. But in industry, I seem to do pretty okay. My experience is that if I finish between 2/3 and 3/4 of what I start? I get a positive performance review and a raise. They even talk about it; like "if you are accomplishing all of your goals, you probably aren't being ambitious enough when setting those goals."

(I mean, I've been in industry since 1997, and my impression is that breaking in was a lot easier then than it is now... and it did take me a long time to work up to the point where I could get a job at a top-tier tech company, and even now, I'm a SysAdmin and not a SWE, (I have worked SWE type jobs at less prestigious companies... but here? I'm a SysAdmin.) I would be a better employee, with better job prospects if I had the personality and follow through to get a degree, no question.)

My experience with those interviews (at least for a more senior position) is that they test knowledge of whatever specialty you are dealing with and to a lesser extent, intelligence and problem solving ability. The former, of course, can (and should be) studied for; the latter, less so.

I'm sure intelligence and problem solving ability also help (and to some extent, are required) in academia, but if you aren't the sort of person who does 'good enough' work every time on time, you aren't going to get good grades, as far as I can tell, even if you are brilliant. That sort of plodding follow-through is not tested at all in interviews, and while it's a positive attribute to have as an employee, from experience, it won't kill your career if you are lacking it.

>There are ways to make the points you have made that are helpful and supportive. I don't think your first comment is that sort of thing.

Re-reading my own comments, I think you are right that my comment wasn't helpful.

It probably would be worth the time for me to figure out how to say this in a more constructive way, because I do see a lot of people, especially my more right-leaning friends who feel deep feelings of persecution from, you know, things people have said on the internet, that would never be said in real life anywhere I or they have been or would go.

>If the essentially entire world is the problem and there is a relatively small number of people that get your issues

In that case, I totally agree that you have a larger problem.

But my experience of adhd is not like that. My experience is that the only context in which other people give me a hard time about this sort of thing is if I talk about it in certain online communities. If you talk with a therapists or psychiatrist or if you read books by people educated in the field, you generally get useful help from a compassionate person. Heck, I've had good experiences talking with my bosses about this sort of thing. Mostly it's just the faceless internet trolls I've experienced espousing the views we are talking about, and I thing it's very easy (and very unhealthy) to get into a situation where it feels like faceless internet trolls represent how most people think.

My point is that talking about this sort of thing online is quite often super counterproductive.

(as to the larger issue... I can see what you mean about victim blaming... but I also point out that you could replace 'avoid' with 'ostracize' in my original post without really changing the denotation of my words, if you wanted more of a 'fight back' connotation.)

>But I think 85% of the issue with my ADHD is the social stigma and people who will never understand nor accept it.

You... sound like you participate in a lot of online discussion groups where the general public talks about ADHD.

I don't think this is healthy, for all the reasons you list. I mean, support groups are useful for some people, and you can have online support groups, but just like in person support groups, you need to filter so that the people who just want to insult you are not participating.

I think this is something that needs to be taught in high school; once you are out of high school? you get to pick your peers. If your peers make you feel bad about who you are, pick new peers.

so, uh, I have similar issues, and you know what works for me?

Going into a physical office with a professional middle manager.

I mean, assuming I find a place where I'm a good fit (meaning, my technical abilities make it worth the time of the middle manager to manage me) it works really well, because the job of the middle manager is, essentially, to make people like me work; Because I honestly want to be useful, I think that often said middle managers feel good about the whole thing, too, because I really do get more done under their guidance. They feel useful, I feel useful, etc...

The other thing is that I go through periods of strong productivity and of very weak productivity. This is... acceptable in industry. Ok, so you have some unemployed time, but that's okay because when you are really productive, the remuneration is pretty great.

Also, on the ADHD side? for me? this is after getting the medication. It helps... a lot. but I still benefit more from having a middle manager than most people do, I think.

Append: more on medicalizing your shit:

We live in an age where we spend a huge amount of our GDP on medical care. We have amazing solutions for a lot of problems. Take advantage of this, because when medical science has a good solution, it's often super easy and effective.

Sleep apnea, for instance, is easy to test for and easy to treat, and if it goes untreated? Really fucks up your attention span (and your cardiovascular system) It's one of those things where modern medical science has a quick, cheap and easy mechanical fix.

There's a bunch of other crap like that, too. I personally would go for the sleep apnea test before I messed around too much with medications; not that medications are bad, but if you have it, treating sleep apnea is an unalloyed good, (well, getting mask fit setup is... difficult, but that's mostly a matter of buying the masks and trying them; a small matter of money on a software dev salary) while most medications have pluses and minuses that need to be carefully weighed, even once you've found the one that is best for you.

This is something else I want to write about. Starting a really different service is a lot harder to sell, and I knew going in that selling is what I am worst at.

Also, when I started, most of the competition was using UML or OpenVZ. Xen was unquestionably superior to those technologies for multi tenant systems, so one could argue that this market wasn't as crowded in 2005

Of course, I was big into the idea of a commodity product. Like I said, competing as a commodity requires less marketing skill. Instead of talking someone into trying something new, you start with something they already are using and then just point out the advantages of your implementation, which can be as simple as the blog I posted in the other comment.

I responded to parent; I am slowly moving towards that announcement that I've been talking about. I mean, the new folks (srn and adp) are not that different from me in terms of values, so I obviously don't want or need (and am not really competent with) corporate-speak, but I do want to come up with something that focuses more on the business and less on my own personal issues (and this note, well, focuses more on the personal issues. While I think it's probably appropriate within this thread, it's me whining on a personal level, working through my issues, not me making an announcement about the company.)

I like the idea of sort-of serializing the 'post-mortem' parts of the story; going through my diary and emails and writing up buisness-level and technical incident reports; enough time has passed for most of these that assuming I leave off names, it shouldn't be too embarrassing for anyone.

as someone else said, http://prgmr.com/xen/ - note, I've sold all but 5% to other people who are as enthusiastic as I was back when I was really into it, folks that are technically better than I am, so you shouldn't take the fact that I completely burnt out as a reason to not use them. I need to write up an announcement for them, and I haven't yet. I keep writing it and it keeps coming out sounding like a postmortem for my own failures. I mean, that's a reasonable way of looking at it, but the company is still a going concern, and I see no reason why the buyers oughtn't get another ten years out of the thing; I need to do a postmortem on my failures for me (and I need to whine about it some to my friends) - but the business needs something rather more upbeat, because the sale really isn't a bad thing for the business... really, it's a good thing. I am thoroughly burnt out, and having someone else who is enthusiastic in charge (and who mostly shares my values, too) is unambiguously good for the business.

Difficulties? Eh, I'm a really bad negotiator. I'm pretty good at picking engineers and technicians (I might reasonably say that I'm really good at doing so... almost everyone who worked for me at retail wages went on to get real jobs that pay real bay area level money.) - but I'm not a good leader. I don't think I got as much out of those excellent technicians and engineers as their next employers did. I really only have very vague ideas of why I'm a bad leader; it's one of those things where I'm bad at it largely because of a lack of wisdom. I actually just wrote another comment on the subject[1] and if that is correct, well, maybe I can become a leader someday, but there's a long journey for me between here and there. I need to become a lot more comfortable with what I refer to as nietzschean self-deception[3], and honestly, I'm not sure that doing so is worth it to me if I can be comfortable as an Engineer for the rest of my life.

It is also a market with a low barrier to entry, and lots of competition. If you can hire one pretty good, experienced Engineer and two smart, juniors you have most of the capital needs met, Of course if you want a good deal on packet and power, you end up buying a lot of that (for me, my power and packet was rather cheaper than a senior level engineer; I mean, it was less than $10K/month. Not a whole lot less. Much less scale than that and you'll have difficulty competing on price) - but the low barrier to entry is important because market opportunities are exploited pretty quickly.

I think I was also bad at strategy. At several points in time, I had overwhelming technology advantages over anyone in the same price range, (or I had dramatic price advantages over everyone with similar technology) and I mostly failed to capitalize. At one point, someone even noticed[2] and publicized this; I had a waiting list longer than my arm.

When you have a waiting list for a pre-paid, sticky, recurring revenue business? Do everything you can to get to the point where you can get capacity up fast enough that people don't need to wait. I'm fairly certain I would have been at least 3x larger at my peak, and I think there was a real chance of 10x, if I didn't run waiting lists for the six months where I had that price/technology advantage and people noticed. If I was 3x larger at my peak, that would be a $1m/year turnover, and I don't think it would have required a lot more power and packet or even labor, just because in this business the biggest problem is just having someone around to answer support often enough. I think that would have taken the business from something that paid me just enough to make rent to something that paid more than I could make as a IT contractor. And, because of me being congenitally bad at marketing, I didn't get another chance.

I think that's one of the key takeaways for me. Know your weaknesses (which I did) but then when something comes along that momentarily boosts that weakness? Jump on it with everything you have. That part was the part I missed. You can create opportunities in areas where you are strong all the time; that's what it means to be strong. But opportunities that negate your weaknesses don't come along very often at all; that's what it means to be weak. They should be treated as the very rare events they are.

I mean, I guess the key thing for OP, who wants something easy is just that running a small business is work - and for the money per effort input, it's really quite difficult to beat even mediocre contracting wages. I mean, certainly, it can be done, but it's not easy, and it's not nearly as certain as getting a consulting check. (Which isn't 100%, either, but it's much more certain)

There's a lot of risk in running a company. There's also a chance of a huge reward, but I think that running a product business is usually not that great of an idea for someone who just wants the minimum money with the minimum work. Running a business makes more sense if you want lottery tickets with better odds where you have some control (and want to feel like you had a lot of control if you win)

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14030580

[2]If you aren't good at marketing (and I'm not, I knew that setting out, and I knew that my values and my corporate values meant that I would always be bad at marketing) you need to jump when someone who is notices you. See https://uggedal.com/journal/vps-comparison-between-slicehost... - that was huge for me.

[3]By which I mean the lies we all must tell ourselves to continue to function as human beings. All of us need to come up with some sort of meaning - as the man points out, you can't stare too long into that abyss. The problem I have with Nietzsche in general is that while he feels right about self-deception and power, I personally find self-deception (well, deception in general) to be more uncomfortable than I find power (or more power than I have now) to be comfortable. In fact, I think I have a pretty comfortable level of power right now; I'm nobody's boss, but I have the power to walk out on my boss at any time, and I make more money than I need. (now, the last decade plus of what should have been my retirement fund was dumped into seeing if I could run a business, so I couldn't walk forever, but I've probably got a good year or so, and I've never had trouble finding work, so while I don't have "fuck you money" I don't need to deal with anything very unpleasant.) Frankly, my feelings on having more power than that are pretty mixed. (having less power than that is certainly unpleasant, of course, but I'm not sure that having more power than that is really a step up from where I am now.) - really, that might be another way I'm a bad leader. I really like being thought well of, and like most people, I do enjoy some parts of power, but I'm super uneasy, in other ways, with having significant power over other people.

I would agree. I built something people liked enough to pay me for, and it even gave me a basic income. But I was on call all the time and generally working a lot for like 1/4 what you get working for other people around here, and going home at six.

My experience was that I could slack off and work less than full time, but doing so would damage the business and then I would have to put in a lot more effort.

I mean, if I was better at business, it would have perhaps been different. As it was, it was full time work for about what I earned when I was 17, and on top of that, finding a job after working exclusively for my self was rather harder than doing so after sporadic contracting gigs.

>Sure you can. Desoxyn, Ritalin, and all the others work about the same, and have largely the same side effects. The only reason Methamphetamine is preferred over Amphetamine (i.e. Adderall) for recreational use is that Methamphetamine is much easier for an illicit drug kitchen to cook up from extracted ephedrine.

Perhaps op was suggesting that, generally speaking, regulated sellers don't call those drugs speed. I would argue that because 'the dose makes the poison' is probably the biggest factor here, buying from a regulated seller is a really good idea, and is probably going to make more difference than which particular drug in this class you choose, just because my perception is that the quality control of unregulated sellers is such that the actual amount of the drug you are getting is going to vary a lot, which makes maintaining a therapeutic dose rather difficult.

Also, while they are all broadly similar drugs, little changes in chemical structure can make a rather large difference when trying for cognitive enhancement. This is a very complex thing. I mean, these are all in the same class of drugs, sure, they are broadly similar, but they are not the same. methamphetamine metabolizes to amphetamine, for example. From talking to both patients and doctors, at least for the treatment of ADHD? it is quite common for one of those drugs to work, while the others don't help a particular patient at all. In my own case, methylphenidate seems to work at child-sized dosages, while amphetamine doesn't seem to help focus much at all.

>Addicts can't tell the difference between the various drugs in this class. (http://theinfluence.org/neuroscientist-meth-is-virtually-ide...)

First, the link claims to have tested methamphetamine vs amphetamine; it did not claim to test methylphenidate. (as a side note, my own experiences line up with the conventional medical wisdom that methylphenidate is significantly less euphoric than amphetamine. I haven't tried methamphetamine) - next, the 'addicts choice' test might go to addictiveness, but even if they are similarly addictive, it doesn't at all address the concerns about neurotoxicity.

Now, I'm no doctor; I don't know if the claims of methamphetamine neurotoxicity are true or not, or if they are true or not at dosages one might reasonably use to enhance cognitive function (which is a rather different question) but... the neurotoxicity concerns are one of the larger differences between amphetamine and methamphetamine, and in my mind, one of the stronger reasons to choose the former over the latter.

> It's interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that that obituary does not mention how critical Erdős felt his amphetamine use was to his work. A famous anecdote:

I personally don't find this particularly remarkable or relevant to a discussion of the man himself. It would be relevant to a discussion of amphetamines, or of performance enhancing drugs, sure, but it's not really relevant to an obituary.

I have a good friend who says that he can't think as well if he doesn't eat enough meat. If he somehow went from 'above average' to 'legendary' in some field of endeavor, sure, the story about the meat would make for an amusing personal anecdote, and would become commonly cited by omnivores when arguing with vegetarians, but is something that would probably be left out of a one-page obituary.

(replying to my own comment, sorry) -

Parent comment was suggesting that we would call a boss simply saying "no" to an employee asking for some change to be bad management. And that's a pretty reasonable assertion, unlike the straw man I constructed through poor reading comprehension.

So the question then is "why is an ultimatum okay when just saying "no" isn't?"

and that's a good question. I mean, I guess it's explaining that, you know, this is something the boss isn't going to change, that the boss would rather change the employee than change the thing the employee is asking to change.

so... I guess that is better than "no" because it conveys a lot more information. I mean, you could get a similar effect, I think, without the ultimatum with a sufficient "no, and here is why:" but the ultimatum conveys more information about the employers priorities.

>My point is that this was a similar situation to what we normally write off as "bad management"

why? because there was an ultimatum? I don't really see it as bad management. Sometimes it doesn't work out, and that's fine. Sometimes a relationship that worked last year or last month doesn't work anymore... and while that's sad, it's also natural and should be okay. And sometimes, it's clear that the employee and the employer are moving in different directions. This is okay.

I think that employees need to stop thinking that getting fired is the end of the world, because it puts them at a serious disadvantage.

That's the thing; the negotiation doesn't end when you are done negotiating salary; and work is almost a constant negotiation. If you aren't willing to walk, or if you aren't willing to let the other guy walk, you are going to get screwed. Relationships end; it happens, be prepared for that eventuality financially and emotionally, and learn to move on.

Yeah, the difference is subtle. I know I was fired like this once, and I still say I was fired, but from the boss' actions at the time? I think he was super surprised that I made that choice; he fully expected me to do the "do this thing" part of the "do this thing or quit" ultimatum.

I mean, it was an ultimatum, but as far as I can tell, I could very well have simply done what the boss asked of me and kept the job.

No, I mean I got fired 'cause I only put in 5 hours a week, and thus did not complete the projects that I was expected to complete, because I was unable to keep myself focused for longer than that.

It was hourly work, too, so I was only getting paid for those 5 hours. (that's what I meant about being honest with my hours. Lots of people stare at the screen for 8 hours and call it a day.)

>just don't talk to external recruiters.

See, my experience? external recruiters (and body shops/contract to hire gigs) are a great way to get your foot in the door when you don't quite have the skills or experience required, or when there's something else wrong with you that prevents you from being really good.

In general, good people won't take jobs through body shops and external recruiters. Most advice here, including yours is for people who are really good. And if you are really good, that's great advice. ignore external recruiters, body shops, and contract-to-hire positions; You should have no trouble doing way better through your contacts.

But... do you know what this means? this means that departments that hire through body shops and external recruiters tend to get employees who aren't very good. This can be an opportunity, sometimes.

That's the thing. if you're an ordinary run of the mill person and not some industry giant, say, and you're having a hard time because of personal issues, or because you made some poor career choices and need some time to catch up, or because your brain just refuses to work correctly? Deliberately targeting external recruiters and contract-to-hire jobs can be a good way to find a job where you won't be holding the team back; where your mediocre plodding (or where your earnest efforts at recovery) will be enough to make the employer happy, and sometimes even to shine. It will get you six months to a year where you get paid decently and where other people seem to think you are really helpful (which is really important to me.) where you can get yourself together to the point where you can handle a real job again.

I found myself in that situation recently; I was in a pretty bad place mentally, and simply wasn't able to perform up to a level that would be acceptable on the sort of team I'd normally work on. I tried, and someone I knew gave me a work from home gig. I put in, literally like five hours a week. I mean, I'm not going to lie about my hours, but without someone standing right there, i wasn't in a state where I could get much of anything done. (Depression seems... so counterproductive. So I feel shitty, right? but then I don't want to do anything that might make me feel better because I feel shitty. what the fuck, right?)

But yeah. I put my resume on dice, and let external recruiters and body shops call me all day. I interviewed a lot, which was fun; I found that I wasn't a senior devops person, even if I am a senior sysadmin. I eventually landed where I am now, in an environment where, in my degraded state, I was not the best on the team, but I was far from the worst. I had a manager who was cool with me saying "Hey, I'm distracted. Get me back on track" - and yeah, I'm still at the job now. I think my performance is improving with my general mental state; I'm almost six months in, and it was exactly what I needed.

That's the thing. You can't outright say "Uh, hey guys, I'm kinda broken. I need an easy job I can do while I get myself together." - As far as I can tell, the best way to signal that sort of thing? talk to those external recruiters; to those body shops. They'll fix you up with a job that pays slightly more than you'd get full time for the same job, but where standards are dramatically lower.